VINODBHAI UGARDAS PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2) PRESENT JURISDICTION THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 Vinodbhai Ugardas Patel Dy.Cit, Cir.2(1)(1) Nirma House Vs Ahmedabad. B/H. Petrol Pump Ashram Road Ahmedabad 38009. Pan : Aavpp 9679 F. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate Assessee By Revenue By : Ms.Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Guptathis Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(A), Delhi Dated 26.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Grounds Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Read As Under:

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of IT Act.” 3. The present appeal is barred by limitation by 105 days’ delay. An application explaining reasons for delay was filed, stating that it was on account of Accountant of the assessee, who was handling the tax matters, and who in turn forgot to submit the appellate order to the assessee, that

MOHAN RAMCHANDANI,BANGLORE vs. ACIT-INTL TAX-2 AHEMDABAD, AHMEDABAD GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-17 Mohan Ramchandani Acit-Intl Tax-2 Flat-11001 Boddaballapur Road Vs. Ahmedabad. Presting Monte Carlo Yelahanka Satelite Town So Bangalore North. Pan : Adgpr 0211 D (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Saurabh Gupta, Ar Assessee By : Shri Saresh Kartik Laxmanbhai, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

54F was disallowed, and the total income was 4 assessed at Rs.2,54,56,330/-. Penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) and 271F were separately initiated. 6. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions and documents on record, confirmed the disallowance made

RAJESHBHAI BHAGWANDAS PATEL,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5 (3) (2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, and the assessment order is quashed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13

penalty under section 271(1)(b) was initiated for non-compliance with notices under section 142(1). The total assessed income was thus computed as under: 4 Particulars Amount (Rs.) Returned income 2,19,940/- Addition under section 50C 2,04,081/- Addition on account of capital gains 10,04,081/- Total Assessed Income 14,28,102/- The assessment

SMT. MAYA K. DHARWANI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2094/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Maya K. Dharwani The Income Tax Officer Block No.88, B Ward बनाम/ Ward-7(2)(3) Opp. Railway Station Ahmedabad V/S. Kuber Nagar Ahmedabad - 382 340 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aefpd 1506 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) ….. "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divatia, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

u/s 54EC of the Act, which clearly is an act of furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Revenue rightly imposed the penalty for intentionally furnishing inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act relating to quantum of incorrect deduction under section 54EC

SH. RAJESH NARENDRABHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(2), VADODARA, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13 Shri Rajesh Narendrabhai Patel Ito, Ward-1(2)(2) Baroda Bolt & Engineering Works Vadodara. Opp: Lalbaug Atitigruh Pratapnagar Vadodara Pan : Acqpp 6089 C (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : None : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Penalty proceedings under sections 271F and 271(1)(c) were separately initiated, and interest under sections 234A and 234B was charged. 2.9 Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee reiterated that while he accepted the working of capital gain at Rs. 62,60,142/-, he was entitled

JAYESHKUMAR BALDEVBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

54F of the Act. The revised computation resulted in Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.2,01,60,785/-, which was added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated for concealment of income. 4. In the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(Appeals), after reviewing the facts and legal

DOLATRAI MANGANLAL DESAI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumarasstt.Year : 2012-13 Dolatrai Manganlal Desai Ito, Ward-2 A-501, Keshav Priya Apartment Vs Vapi. Nr. Gopal Nagar Memnagar Ahmedabad 380 052. Pan : Ackpd 5590 N (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Jaymin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ravindra, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

54F etc, however without considering the same the addition sustained by the CIT(A) is against the provision of law which requires to be deleted. 06. That the assessee has neither furnished inaccurate particulars of Income nor concealed any Income and as such penalty proceedings Initiated u/s 271(1)(b) may please be dropped. 07. That the appellant has neither